Comments 0

Presentation transcript

Prepared for the Alaska 20/20 PartnershipBringing Alaskans Together to Chart Our FutureInstitute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage • Alaska Humanities ForumLinda Leask, Mary Killorin, Stephanie Martin • Graphic Design: Clemencia MerrillOctober 2001Trends in Alaska’s People and Economy2IntroductionAlaska Population, 1890 - 20001890191019201930 1940 1950 196019701980 1990200032,000 64,000 64,000 55,000 59,000 72,000 129,000 226,000301,000402,000550,000627,0001897-1906:Gold Rush–population doubles1890 -1920:Rapid growth in commercialsalmon industry1930s:Revival ofgold mining1940-1960:Military boom–population triples1973-1977:Pipeline construction boom–population up 25%1986-1989:Oil price crash–recession1980-1985: St ate oil-revenue boom–population up 30%1989:Prince William Soundoil spill–largeston U.S. shoresSources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; I SER publications; George W. Rogers and Richard A. Cooley, Alaska’s Population and Economy; David Kresge, Thomas Morehouse, and George W. Rogers, Issues in Alaska Development.1964: Largestearthquake in U.S. history1968: Discovery of Prudhoe Bayoil field, largest in North America1959:Alaska becomes a state1950s: Large-scale timber harvesting and processingbegin in Southeast AlaskaBackgroundWhen Alaska became a state, in 1959, some Americans thought it was a mistake: Alaska was toofar away, too cold, and too undeveloped. It had just a sprinkling of people across an immense area anda fragile economy that relied on military activities and a few resource industries—which generatedboom and bust cycles, but no permanent development. But Alaska has seen big changes since 1959:• Alaska now has nearly 5 times the jobs and 3 times the population it had 40 years ago.This isn’t to say that Alaska has solved all the problems inherent in being a huge, far northern statewith an economy that still relies, in one way or another, on its natural resources.• In 1968 Alaska had an enormous piece of luck:the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the largest field inNorth America, was discovered on land the state government owns. Much of the social and economicchange in Alaska since then can be traced to North Slope oil development.• Oil development had far broader effects than any other development, because oil is so valu-able—and, thanks to the state government, a big share of the profits from oil development went intothe state economy. The state collected $55 billion in oil revenues through 2001, with the peak from1980 to 1985. The state spent most oil money, expanding services and building infrastructure. But italso deposited some in the Permanent Fund—a savings account of about $24 billion in late 2001.• Massive state spending in the early 1980s created an unprecedented boom that endedabruptly in 1986, when oil prices collapsed. The state no longer had the money to fuel rapid growth,and Alaska plunged into recession. The economy began recovering by 1990, but oil production fellthroughout the 1990s—meaning smaller state oil revenues.• In 2001, the state continues to use oil revenues to pay most general expenses. But thestate had budget deficits in 6 of the past 8 years. Also, with less state spending, and with severalbasic industries losing jobs, Alaska’s economy slowed dramatically in the 1990s. Alaskans are nowthinking about how to broaden the economy and pay for government in the future.• Luckily, Alaska has valuable assets it lacked before North Slope oil development:more people, improved infrastructure, reduced living costs, and—the biggest legacy of oil revenues—aPermanent Fund that is expected to produce $75 billion in earnings over the next 25 years.Organization and Summary of PublicationThis publication, prepared for Alaska 20/20 (see back page), looks at changes in population,employment, government, and much more in Alaska since statehood. It’s divided into sections, withsubject headers at the top of each page. Some of the big changes over time are summarized below.• A growing population made possible local services and amenities Alaska lacked in 1959. But italso increased demand for state services—which today are mostly paid for by dwindling oil revenues.• People still move into and out of Alaska with economic booms and busts. But more of thosedrawn to Alaska during the booms of the 1970s and 1980s stayed on when the economy slowed,giving Alaska a more stable, older population with fewer young adults.• The Alaska Native population doubled in 30 years, as improved health care helped peoplelive longer and reduced infant mortality. But that growth has implications for rural Alaska, wherejobs are scarce, incomes are lower, and housing and utility systems are costly.• Alaska’s economy has matured—but it still depends heavily on state government spendingand on a few resource industries. In the 1990s, the oil, timber, and seafood industries lost jobs.•Incomes of Alaskans have dropped from far above the U.S. average to just about the average.That drop is somewhat—but not entirely—offset by a decline in Alaska’s historically high living costs.• Slow job growth and stagnating incomes are currently forecast for the coming decade.• Alaska’s high-school students are less likely to graduate than students nationwide, andhalf of Alaska’s 10th graders failed required math and writing tests in 2001.•Alcohol kills Alaskans at twice the U.S. rate. An estimated 5 per 1,000 babies born to AlaskaNative mothers have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome—compared with fewer than 1 per 1,000 nationwide.• Alaskans have paid no personal state taxes since 1980, and for many Alaskans, PermanentFund dividend payments from the state now exceed the local taxes they pay.• State general spending per capita is down 50 percent since 1985, taking inflation intoaccount. And the state continues to face deficits as the population grows and oil revenues dwindle.3IntroductionHistorically, Alaska’s non-Native population has been transient, with many people drawn tothe state during economic booms and then leaving during the busts. The large military popu-lation also added to the high population turnover. More men than women came for the chanceat high-paying but often temporary jobs. Few non-Natives were born and raised in Alaska, andfew people retired in the state—which tended to keep the population young.But in recent times, as Alaska’s economy grew and more servicesand amenities became available, the population grew and becamemore like the broad U.S. population. The population has become:• Larger.Alaska’s population tripled from 1960 to 2000, with thefastest growth during pipeline construction in the mid-1970s and inthe years of high state oil revenues, 1980-85 (see timeline, page 2).• More diverse.The share of Alaskans who are Black, Asian, orPacific Islander more than doubled between 1960 and 2000.• More stable.The share of residents who had been in Alaska atleast 5 years grew from 57 percent in 1970 to 77 percent by 1990.•Older. Alaskans’ median age was 23 in 1960 and 32 in 2000.• Less likely to be men.There were 132 men for every 100women in Alaska in 1960; by 2000 the ratio was 107 to 100.•Less likely to be married couples. In 2000, more householdsconsist of single mothers, persons living alone, and “other” house-holds, which include unmarried couples.• More concentrated. Nearly three in four residents lived in and aroundAnchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau by 2000. Most dramatically, the shareof Alaska Natives in the large urban areas increased from 17 to 32 percentfrom 1970 to 2000.Alaska’s Native population also saw significant changes since statehood,doubling between 1970 and 2000. That growth partly reflects improvedhealth care for Alaska’s Native peoples in recent decades, helping adultslive longer and reducing infant mortality.4PopulationAlaska Native Population, 1740 - 2000Circa1740-8057,00020001970194019101867-+Smallpox, measlesepidemicsU.S. buys AlaskaInfluenzaepidemicsDiptheriaepidemicTBwidespreadPublic healthprograms fightTB and otherdiseasesPopulationdoubles in30 yearsPopulation regainspre-contact level25,00032,000 51,00098,000*Russians arrive*Includes persons who identified themselves only as Alaska Nat ive in the 2000 census; an additional21,000 ident ified themselves as Alaska Native and some other race.Sources: See sources on timeline, page 2.About 1 in 6 Alaskans are Alaska Natives—a larger percentage of Native Americans than in any other state.Alaska’s population grew only about a third as fast in the1990s as in earlier decades, and the population swings inand out of Alaska we re more moderate, with birthsaccounting for much of the growth. During the 1990s:• The Mat-Su Borough—with lower housing prices, arural setting, and within reasonable commuting distanceto Anchorage—grew fastest.• Southwest and northern regions with largelyNative populations also grew faster than the state average.•Southeast Alaska,hurt by declines in the timberindustry, lost people, as did the Yukon-Koyukuk region.Historically, Alaska had a young population, and in 2000it still had more children and fewer people over 55. Butthose differences are narrowing. And between 1985 and2000, the number of young adults (20-34) actually dropped nearly 30 percentwhile the number of older adults (35-54) leaped 60 percent. What changed dur-ing that time to create such a dramatic shift from younger to older adults?•Young adults were drawn to Alaskaduring fast job growth in the 1970s and1980s. The 1990s saw no such fastgrowth and no influx of young workers.•The number of military in Alaskadropped in the 1990s; military personnelare typically young adults.•Many people who came duringrecent economic booms stayed on, get-ting older and often retiring here; in thepast, few older people stayed in Alaska.•Baby boomers—born during the veryhigh-birth years 1946-1964—are gettingolder, in Alaska and nationwide.•Birth rates among non-Natives werelower from the late 1960s through them i d - 1 980 s—so there aren’t as manyyoung adults as aging baby boomers.•Alaska has more children, partly dueto the higher Native birth rate (45% high-er than all Alaska women) and youngerpopulation. Natives make up about 22%of all school-age children, compared withabout 16% of the total population.5PopulationAlaska had five times more jobs in 1999 than in 1961. The mix of jobs shifted over time,as some industries grew much faster than others. And the make-up of the labor force changed,as many more women went to work. The number of jobs didn’t grow steadily, but moved upsharply during booms and then slumped during busts (see timeline, page 2).• Growth was fastest from 1973-1977, during the pipeline construction boom, and from1980-1985, during the boom created by rapid state spending of oil revenues (see page 14).• Jobs slumped when pipeline construction ended. A bigger slump followed from 1986-1988, when the collapse of oil prices—and state oil revenues—threw Alaska into recession.• Job growth slowed in the 1990s, as oil production and state oil revenues droppedand several basic industries—those that bring new money into the economy—lost jobs.• Service and trade industries created half the news jobs since 1960, as Alaska’seconomy matured and established local support industries and as tourism increased. Injectionof about $1 billion annually into the economy from Permanent Fund dividends continued tofuel growth in these industries in the 1990s.• State and local governments added 20 percent of new jobs since 1961, as the popu-lation grew, the state added services, and new local governments and school districts formed.• The resource and infrastructure industries combined added about a third of thenew jobs since statehood. But the resource industries are volatile, and employment movesup or down quickly with changes in production and commodity prices.•The seafood industry expanded in the 1970s and 1980s with the recovery of Alaskasalmon runs, development of profitable new crab fisheries, and replacement of foreign boatswith American boats and processors in the huge Bering Sea groundfish fisheries. But in the1990s, over-capitalization and competition from foreign farmed salmon eroded profits—leading to management changes and consolidation in both fishing and seafood processing.•Tourismadded more jobs than any other basic industry since 1990. The number of visitorsclimbed from 39,000 in 1961 to 1.1 million in 1998.•The petroleum industry added jobs as North Slopeproduction grew. But falling production and lower oilprices cost Alaska jobs in the 1990s.• Mining added few jobs until the 1990s, whenmineral production—chiefly zinc—increased sharply.• Timber harvests and employment grew throughthe 1980s. But by the late 1990s, reduced harvests andclosure of pulp mills cut employment in half.Regional job growth varied in the 1990s, dependingon the mix of local jobs.•The Mat-Su region added many jobs, as itspopulationgrew and its economy expanded. TheDenali Borough added a lot of seasonal tourism jobs.•Southwest areas added jobs in local government and in non-profit arms of Nativecorporations (see page 8).• Southeast Alaska was hurt by declines in the timber and seafood industries.•Jobs on the North Slope and in Valdez are tied to the health of the oil industry.Many Alaskans are worried because it looks as if there won’t be nearly as many new jobsin the future as in the past—although the past teaches us that Alaska’s economic outlook canchange unpre d i c ta b l y. Rura lAlaska, which has a mostlyAlaska Native population, facesparticular problems. Jobs in thecash economy are scarce, despitethe new jobs added in the 1990s,and the prospects for futureg rowth are limited. AlaskaNatives have historically not beenin the labor force to the sameextent as other Alaskans (seetable)—and large numbers ofNatives born in recent decadeswill soon be looking for jobs.6EconomyShare of Alaskans in Work Force*1960 1970 1980 1990All women 39.4 45.7 58.9 65.9Native women N/A 31.0 42.8 51.4All men 76.8 78.8 78.5 79.9Native men N/A 50.6 54.2 60.1Estimated growth in working-age Alaska Natives, 1995-2005: 25%* Population 16 and over, with jobs or looking for work. Excludes military.Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; I SER estimatesCommodities—salmon, petroleum, minerals, timber—have long been mainstaysof Alaska’s economy. Commodity values depend not only on production but onprices, which can move up or down quickly with changes in world markets.• Seafood was the most valuable commodity in 1965, followed by minerals.• Oil became by far the most valuable commodity with the start of NorthSlope production and remains so, despite lower production.• The value of mineral production exceeded that of seafood in 2000,with increased production of zinc and other minerals and low salmon prices.• Agriculture remains small,with most production for local markets.• No reliable estimates exist of the value of Alaska wood before processing.Industries that export commmodities, and a few that export services (liketourism), bring new money into Alaska. Other industries—from finance to construc-tion—supply services to residents and rely on money circulating in the economy.All industries contribute to jobs and to gross state product (the annual value ofindustrial and government production). But the relative contributions depend on thevalue of production, compared with the number of workers required for production.• Oil has high value but requires relatively few workers to produce.•Service and trade industries (including tourism) hire a lot of workerswho typically don’t earn much—so they contribute more to jobs than to GSP.• Seafood is a valuable commodity that requires many workers tocatch and process—so it contributes nearly twice as much to jobs as to GSP.7EconomyAlaska’s economy has a number of special aspects, including:• Alaska Native corporations are unique to Alaska (see box at right). Theregional Native corporations in particular are a growing economic force.•The military has been a mainstay of Alaska’s economy since WorldWar II,when Alaska’s strategic military location became clear. Today, even withnumbers of military personnel at about half their 1960 levels, Department ofDefense spending remains critical to Alaska’s economy.• More Alaska jobs are in non-profit businesses, especially in health careand social assistance services—including services for children and emergencyshelters—and in civic, charitable, and advocacy groups. The exception is arts andentertainment, where U.S. employment in non-profits is higher.8EconomyAlaska Native Corporations in the State’s Economy, 2001The 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act awarded Alaska Natives 44 million acres and $1 billion and established12 regional and more than 200 village corporations to manage the land and money. Those corporations:• Are by far Alaska’s largest private land owners, with regional and village corporations owning 12 percent of Alaskalands. All other private landowners together own only 1 percent.• Own all or part of at least 125 businesses in Alaska and employ more than 10,000 Alaskans.• Represent 1 in 6 of the state’s 100 largest private employers.• Have taken over (through non-profit arms) administration of federal and state health care programs in many rural areas.• Have paid, to date, roughly $1 billion in dividends to shareholders. Shown below are regional corporation boundariesand per shareholder dividends through 2000. Broadly speaking, corporations that either own lands with marketableresources—or that are able to take advantage of resource development—have been the most successful. Cook InletRegional Corporation has paid the highest dividends, mostly from investments in oil, gas, and telecommunications. ArcticSlope Corporation’s most successful investments are in oilfield services; Sealaska has profited from logging operations.Non-Profit Businesses in the Alaska Economy, 1997(Share of Employment in Non-profit Businesses)aAlaska U.S.Health care/social servicesb 70% 54%Other Servicesc33% 23%Arts/entertainmentd11% 24%Educational servicese40% 23%aBusinesses exempt from federal taxes, as identified by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.bIncludes hospitals, health clinics, nursing homes, and doctors’ offices; social assistance services for children, the elderly, andthe disabled; and food, temporary shelter, and other emergency services.cIncludes civic and charitable organizations, environmental and other advocacy groups; and chambers of commerce and professionalassociations. Excludes government agencies and other organizations (like Alaska’s regional housing authorities) that administer publicprograms. Also excludes religious organizations and labor unions.dIncludes museums, historical sites, performing arts companies, and some organizations promoting the arts.eIncludes some technical training, business, fine arts, language, and sports instruction schools. Excludes elementary and secondaryschools, colleges, and universities.Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997 Economic Census•Per capita incomes of Alaskans rosesharply in the 1970s, re f l e c ting thepipeline construction boom that createdmany high-paying jobs. Incomesremained 50 percent above the U.S.average in the early 1980s, during theboom created by high state spending.•Alaskan incomes fell to the U.S.average by 2000. That decline reflectsslower job growth, elimination of high-paying jobs, like oil-industry and con-struction jobs, and the addition of lower-paying trade and service jobs.•Alaska was the only state whereincomes of the poorest families grewfaster than incomes of the wealthiest inrecent times—likely due to PermanentFund dividend payments (see page 15).•Real incomes (adjusted for inflation)of Alaskans rose just 1 percent in the1 990s, with some re gional incomesrising faster and some falling.•Wide income disparity still existedamong re gions in 1999, with rura lincomes generally lower. But these fig-ures don’t take into account either thehigher rural living costs or the substan-tial value of rural subsistence harvests.9EconomyLiving in Alaska has historically cost more than thenational average. Alaska is far from the contiguousstates; transporting goods here adds to their costs;small communities can’t take advantage of economiesof scale; building in remote arctic areas (often under-lain by permafrost) is expensive; many communitiesare accessible only by air or water.But over time the costs of living in Anchorage andother large urban areas have moved much closer tothe U.S. average, largely thanks to:• Larger local economies• More efficient transportation• Lower inflation in Anchorage than in other U.S.cities over the past 15 years. That was particularlytrue of housing prices, which tumbled during the1986-1989 recesssion and were slow to recover.Living in remote communities is still much costlier—a problem compounded by the lower money incomesin rural areas. Housing costs are particularly high,including not only costs of building in places withharsh climates, difficult terrain, and no road access,but also the high costs of electricity and other utilities.But it’s difficult to make overall comparisons of livingcosts in urban and in rural Alaska, because people’sspending patterns—and choices of things to buy—aremuch different in cities and villages. Also, Alaskanswho hunt and fish substantially reduce their costs forfood, which is a significant part of living costs.10Cost of LivingThis page provides a glimpse of the health and well-being of Alaskans:• Across Alaska, 1 in 5 school children are from families receivingsome form of public assistance. In some rural areas, that share is 6 in 10.•Alaska has high rates of alcohol-related deaths (from disease andviolence) and of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Among Alaska Natives, FAS isestimated at 4 times the state rate and nearly 10 times the U.S. rate.•Alaska Native communities that control alcohol may be reducingthe high rates of violent death that have prevailed for decades.11Communities and HealthHealth of Alaskans and Other Americans, 1990sAlaskaaAlaska NativebU.S. AveragecInfant mortality (Deaths per 1,000 births) 7.2 10.4 7.2Babies born with Fetal Alcohol 1.4 4.8 0.5Syndrome (Estimated rate per 1,000 births)dTwo-year-olds with 82% N/A 80%recommended immunizationsTeen birth rate (Births per 1,000 girls, 15-19) 47.8 85.1 51.1Obesity among adults (2000) 20.5% N/A 19.8%(Adults with body mass indexes at least 30kg/m)Cigarette smoking among adults 27% 42% 23.5%Alcohol-related deathse16.3 N/A 6.8(Age-adjusted per 100,000, annualaverage, 1990-1999)Tuberculosis (Incidence per 100,000) 9.8 33.9 7.4Deaths from heart disease 72 72.3 105(Age-adjusted, per 100,000)Deaths from cancer 202.4 204 205.7(Age-adjusted, per 100,000)Accidental deaths (Age-adjusted per 100,000) 42 98.3 28.9Suicides (Age-adjusted per 100,000) 20.3 42.3 10.3Homicides (Age-adjusted per 100,000) 7.6 13.5 7.3aAs of 1998 or 1999bAnnual average, 1996-1998 or 1997-1999cAs of 1997 or 1998dAverage for 1995-98. These are the most recent figures available from the Alaska Fetal Alcohol Syndrome SurveillanceProject. They are not directly comparable to earlier figures, because the current methodology is different.eIncludes all deaths from various causes with an explicit mention of alcohol.Sources: Alaska Bureau of Vital Statistics; Annie E. Casey Foundation; Journal of the American Medical Association, October 27,1999; Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse; U.S. Center for Disease Control;National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Alaska Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Surveillance ProjectThe picture of education in Alaska is mixed: the adult population is well-educated, but in the1990s Alaska’s teenagers were less likely to graduate from high school and less likely to goon to college than other U.S. students. And more than half the high-school sophomores in2001 couldn’t write or do math well enough to pass the High-School Graduation QualifyingExam, which was introduced in 2000.•The share of Alaska adults with high-school diplomas nearly tripled between 1960and 2000. The share of adults with four years of college more than doubled.• Alaska’s adult population is better educated than U.S adults on average, but thegap has narrowed since 1980.• More than half of Alaska’s 10th graders failed the math and writing sections ofthe Spring 2001 Graduation Qualifying Exam, and a third failedthe reading section.• The likeliest to fail the math section were those who speakEnglish as a second language, those who come from poor fam-ilies, and those who are Alaska Native, Black, or Hispanic.• Alaska had the lowest rate in the nation of high-schoolgraduates going on to college in the 1990s: just 40 percentstarted college within a year of graduating, compared with anational average of 61 percent.•Also below the national average was the share of highschool seniors graduating in Alaska in the 1990s—just 84 per-cent, compared with a U.S. average of 92 percent.• More college freshmen from Alaska leave their homestate to attend school than do freshmen from any other state.From 1992 to 1998, the share of Alaska’s college freshmenattending college outside increased from48 to 60 percent.• Alaskateachers earn more than theU.S. average—but the gap is much small-er than in 1980. Taking inflation intoaccount, teachers’ salaries nati o n w i d eclimbed in the 1990s, while salaries inAlaska fell.• Adjusted for Alaska’s higher costof living, teachers in Alaska earned ona ve rage about 8 percent more thanteachers nationwide in 1999 — c o m-pared with 25 percent more in 1990.12EducationOn the facing page we look broadly at Alaska’s air and water and fish and wildlife:• Data on air and water quality have never been collected in most areas of Alaska.• Sport hunters and anglers take only about 1 percent of the total fish and wildlifeharvest, even though numbers of sport anglers have grown sharply since 1970. Sport har-vests are, however, concentrated in a few areas. Most non-resident anglers buy just one- orthree-day fishing licenses.• Annual subsistence harvests are major sources of food in Alaska. Buying replace-ment food could cost rural households thousands of dollars, assuming meat and fish wouldcost $3 to $5 per pound. Aside from their economic importance, these harvests also havecultural and other importance for Alaska Natives.Air Quality in Alaska• Alaska air quality is rated “good” almost all the time in the five areas the EPA monitors.• The state’s biggest pollution problems have been high levels of carbon monoxide in Anchorageand Fairbanks on winter days when temperature inversions trap vehicle emissions near theground. In the 1980s the two cities were among the worst violators of EPA standards nation-wide. But newer cars with reduced emissions, ethanol-blended gasoline, vehicle inspection pro-grams, and other changes have sharply cut carbon monoxide levels.• Fine particles of dust, ash, or silt in the air (“particulate matter”) have exceeded what EPAconsiders healthy levels in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley on a few days in recent years.Percentage of Days During 2000 with Good and Unhealthy Air*Good Air Unhealthy AirAnchorage 87% 0Mat-Su Borough 98% 1%Fairbanks NS Borough 82% 1%Yukon-Koyukuk census area 100% 0Juneau 100% 0*As measured by EPA’s pollutant standards index, which reports combined pollution from carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sul-fur dioxide. In Alaska, EPA monitors only carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and ozone Not all locations reported pollution levels on all days, and the EPA notesthat pollution at a specific monitoring site doesn’t necessarily reflect conditions in the broader area.Water Quality in Alaska• Little information exists about water quality in much of Alaska. The EPA reports that it doesn’thave enough information to characterize the overall health of any of the state’s 136 watershedsas of 2000.• Alaska’s watersheds are “presumed to be in relatively pristine condition,” according to the AlaskaDepartment of Environmental Conservation (DEC). But urban runoff, mining in the Interior andNorthwest, seafood processing in the Aleutians, and wood processing in Southeasthave pollutedindividual waterways.• Ground water is “presumed to be excellent quality” in most of Alaska, according to DEC. Butleaking fuel storage tanks, improper wastewater disposal, contamination at military installa-tions, failed septic systems, and other problems have harmed ground water in specific locations.Sources: EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards: E PA Index of Watershed Indicators; Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air andWater Quality; Municipality of Anchorage, Environmental Services Division; Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center13Natural ResourcesAlaska’s state government collects taxes, royalties, and fees that mostly go into the GeneralFund and can be spent for many purposes. The state also receives federal grants, but thoseare usually restricted to a specific use (like paying the federal share of Medicaid). The state’sincome and spending patterns have changed considerably over the past few decades:• Federal grants covered more than half the state budget in the 1960s. The state’s ownmodest revenues came from various charges and taxes—including taxes on personal incomeand commercial fish—and from oil and gas production in Cook Inlet, which began in the1950s but has always been a small fraction of North Slope production.•The 1968 discovery of the 10-billion-barrel Prudhoe Bay oil field proved a bonanzafor the state government, which owns the field. At peak production, the field supplied 3percent of the world’s oil—and some years of high production coincided with high oil prices.• The state collected $55 billion in petroleum revenues through 2001; those revenueshave paid almost all state general expenses since 1978. The state eliminated personal incometaxes in 1980; it still taxes corporate income, commercial fish, fuel, alcohol, and tobacco.• The state saved a share of oil revenues in the Permanent Fund, a savings accountvoters approved in 1976. In late 2001 the fund balance was about $24 billion,and fund earnings through 2001 totalled $25 billion—which was nearly half asmuch as the state collected in petroleum revenues.• When oil revenues were highest, between 1980 and 1985, state spend-ing fueled an economic boom that pushed employment up 34 percent.• The 1986 oil price collapse cut petroleum revenues by half and plungedAlaska into a recession, as state spending dropped.•Oil production dropped by half in the 1990s, reducing oil revenues;revenues fluctuated as oil prices changed, but the overall trend was down.• The state had budget deficits 6 of the 8 years from 1994 to 2001,drawing on savings to fill the gap. As oil revenues fall and Alaska’s popula-tion rises, the state is spending more than it collects. Deficits are projected to continue,at current spending and with existing income.• Permanent Fund earnings will replace oil revenues as the state’s largest source ofincome in the next 25 years, with earnings projected tobe more than three times larger than oil revenues. Fundearnings already exceeded oil revenues at the end ofthe 1990s, when oil prices were low.• Per capitastate spending from the GeneralFund and other state funds dropped 50 percentfrom 1985 to 1999, taking inflation into account. Atthe same time, federal grants per person increasedabout a third (to re-gain about the same real level as in1965). State spending for Permanent Fund dividendsper person nearly tripled from 1985 to 1999.14GovernmentAlaskans historically paid high federal taxes, because they had higher than averageincomes, and federal taxes are progressive. But in the past 15 years, reduced federal tax ratesand lower Alaska incomes have reduced Alaskans’ relative federal tax burden. As of 1999,the federal government spent about 60 percent more per capita in Alaska than it collected inper capita taxes from Alaska, according to a study by the Kennedy School of Government atHarvard University. Part of that disparity is because defense spending in Alaska is high. Asfor state and local taxes:• Alaskans pay no state personal income or sales taxes.In fact, since 1980, thestate has paid Alaskans: every Alaska resident receives annual cash “dividends” from theearnings of the Permanent Fund. The size of the dividend varies with fund earnings, butdividends have grown over the year as the fund balance grew. In 2001, dividends willtotal more than $1 billion, with $1,850 for every resident.• Alaska’s city and borough governments levy property, sales,and a variety ofspecial taxes. The most common taxes in large urban areas are property taxes; small ruralcities mostly levy sales taxes. Some governments collect both property and sales taxes.Some areas have no city or borough governments; they rely on the state for education andother basic services.• Many Alaska households collect more in dividends than they pay in combinedstate and local taxes. For example, in 2000, an average-size Anchorage household (about3 persons)—paying taxes on a median-priced house, two cars, and a boat—would havecollected about 50 percent more in dividends than it paid in taxes.• Permanent Fund dividends make up more than twice the share of income inpoorer as in wealthier households. In the Wade Hampton area, where per capita incomesare a third those in Anchorage, dividends in 2000 made up 15 percent of per capitaincome, compared with 6 percent inAnchorage.• Alaska’s combined state and local government spending per resident has alwaysbeen higher than the national average. But after climbing to 300 percent of the nationalaverage in 1985, combined spending dropped back to about 150 percent ofthe U.S. average by 1999—about the same as in 1965.15GovernmentThe Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska Humanities Forum thank the dozens of individuals and agencies that supplied information for this publication. Specialthanks to Scott Goldsmith, Steve Colt, Gunnar Knapp, and Darla Siver of ISER; Neal Fried, Ingrid Zaruba, Greg Williams, and Brigitta Windisch-Cole of the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Researchand Analysis; James Wiedle of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; Eileen Jones and others at the Alaska Division of Public Assistance; Erik McCormick of the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development;Nadine Schliebe and Donna Hartley of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Catherine Schumacher of the Alaska Division of Public Health; Anne Schlapia of the Municipality of Anchorage; Susan Shirley ofthe Alaska Department of Fish and Game; Katie John of the Southcentral Foundation; and Susan Merrick of the Alaska Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Surveillance Project.Alaska 20/20: Bringing Alaskans Together to Chart Our FutureThe Alaska 20/20 Partnership is a broad group of public andprivate groups that wants to bring Alaskans together to chart acourse for the future. We all hope to keep Alaska a safe, healthyplace where our children and grandchildren can live and work. Butto do that, we need to take responsibility for the future—what areour aspirations, and how can we achieve them?Over the next several years, Alaska 20/20 will sponsor twoconferences and a series of regional and local meetings. Thepurpose of these conferences and meetings is to bring Alaskans together to define a visionfor the state, sets goals, identify actions to achieve those goals, and measure our progressover time. Some questions we want to explore are:• What binds us together as Alaskans? What are our values?• How will we sustain our economy and support ourselves 20 years from now?• What kind of education will prepare us and our children for the future?• How will we make our communities safe and keep our families healthy?• How will we keep our environment and natural resources healthy?• What public services do we need, and how will we pay for them?Starting Point: Statewide Conference, November 27-28, 2001, in AnchorageAt this conference, Alaskans from around the state will talk broadly about what they see forthe future. From those discussions, Alaska 20/20 will produce written statements onvisions, goals, and benchmarks set by Alaskans for their economy, education, communitiesand families, stewardship of natural resources, and public services.Regional and Local Meetings, 2002: Throughout 2002, Alaskans will be invited todiscuss these vision and goals at community and regional gatherings and to suggeststrategies for achieving them. From these meetings, Alaska 20/20 will compile Alaskans’views on the visions and goals, as well as proposed local, regional, and statewideactions to achieve them.Second Statewide Conference and Progress Report, January 2003:In January,2003, Alaska 20/20 will hold another statewide conference, to report on areas of agree-ment across the state, as well as issues and challenges to be overcome. The conference willdevelop benchmarks for measuring our progress, and we’ll issue a report identifying theprogress Alaskans have made toward achieving our goals. Alaska 20/20 will then reportthe progress to organizations, communities, and individuals across the state.Alaska 20/20 PartnersAlaska Legislative Council Alaska Oil and Gas Commission National Education Association of AlaskaAlaska Association of General Contractors Alaska Railroad Regional ARDORsAlaska Committee, Juneau Ak. Science and Technology Foundation Resource Development Council of AlaskaAlaska Common Ground Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Sheldon Jackson CollegeAlaska Conservation Alliance Anchorage Chamber of Commerce State of AlaskaAlaska Conservation Foundation Anchorage Econ. Development Corp.The Alaska Air Command-LiaisonAlaska High Tech Business Council Alaskans United United Way of AnchorageAlaska Intertribal Council Bridge Builders of Alaska University of Alaska AnchorageAlaska League of Women Voters Commonwealth North University of Alaska StatewideAlaska Municipal League First Alaskans Foundation UA Center for Economic DevelopmentUSDOC, Alaska Export Comm. Service Institute of the North USDA, Rural DevelopmentUAA, ISER U.S. Federal Executives’ Association Alaska Humanities ForumAlaska 20/20 SponsorsAlaska Congressional Delegation Governor of Alaska Alyeska Pipeline Service CompanyAlliance Capital Management BP Alaska Carr Family FoundationFirst Alaskans Foundation Eric Wohlforth Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, LLPKPMG Peat Marwick Phillips Alaska Northrim BankFrancis and Dave Rose Foundation United Way of Anchorage ISER, University of Alaska AnchorageCenter for Economic DevelopmentUniversity of AlaskaA university-based partnership to bring jobs andinvestments to AlaskaInstitute of Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of Alaska AnchorageStudying public policy issues in Alaska since 1961Publication SponsorsUnderstanding Alaska: Special Economic StudiesUniversity of Alaska Foundation grant supportingeconomic development researchCopies of this publication are available from the Alaska Humanities Forum (907-272-5316) and from ISER (907-786-7710). It is also posted on ISER’s Web site atwww.iser.uaa.alaska.edu and on the Alaska Humanities Forum Web site at akhf.org. For more information about Alaska 20/20, call the Alaska Humanities Forum.